United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
is charged in an Indictment with one count of threatening a
law enforcement officer with the intent to impede,
intimidate, and interfere with the officer while he was
engaged in the performance of his official duties, and with
the intent to retaliate against the officer on account of the
performance of his official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 115(a)(1)(B), and one count of making a false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Presently before the
Court is Defendant's Motion for Pretrial Release/Bail.
September 1, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J.
Reuter granted the Government's Motion for Temporary
Detention. Thereafter, on September 8, 2017, United States
Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart ordered that defendant be
detained, finding that the Government proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of defendant as required, and the Government
proved by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety
of other persons and the community. Defendant appealed Judge
Hart's decision. Following a hearing on September 14,
2017, United States District Judge John R. Padova denied
Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and heard oral
argument on defendant's Motion on December 7, 2017.
During this hearing, by agreement of the parties, transcripts
of the earlier bail hearings and the evidence presented at
each such hearing were made part of the record.
Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.,
provides for pretrial detention when a defendant poses a risk
of flight or a danger to the community. The Act provides that
a judge should order pretrial detention when the judge finds
that "no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required
and the safety of any other person and the community."
18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). In determining whether there are
conditions of release that will reasonably assure the
appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community,
the Court should consider the following factors: the nature
and circumstances of the offense charged; the weight of the
evidence against the defendant; the history and
characteristics of the defendant, including the
defendant's character, physical and mental condition,
employment, financial resources, length of residence in the
community, community ties, criminal history, and records
concerning appearance at court proceedings; and the nature
and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
its burden of persuasion, the government must prove by clear
and convincing evidence that the defendant is a danger to the
community, or by a preponderance of the evidence that he
poses a risk of flight if released pending trial. United
States v. Himler, 797 F.2d 156, 160-61 (3d Cir. 1986).
FINDINGS OF FACT
reviewed the submissions of the parties and the transcripts
of the hearings before Magistrate Judges Reuter and Hart and
District Judge Padova, and after conducting an evidentiary
hearing on December 7, 2017, the Court makes the following
findings of fact:
There is probable cause to believe defendant threatened a law
enforcement officer with the intent to impede, intimidate,
and interfere with the officer while he was engaged in the
performance of his official duties, and with the intent to
retaliate against the officer on account of the performance
of his official duties.
There is probable cause to believe defendant knowingly and
willfully made a false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement
United States District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe issued a civil
arrest warrant for defendant on August 28, 2017. Carrying out
the warrant, three Deputy United States Marshals went to the
Advanced Urgent Care ("AUC") facility at 5058 City
Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on August 29, 2017, to
of the Marshals - Thomas Gabriel and John Grandison - entered
the AUC facility and recognized defendant. The two Marshals
went with defendant to defendant's private office. After
the Marshals showed defendant the warrant, which named Mehdi
Nikparvar-Fard, defendant pointed to the warrant and said,
"That's not me." Defendant ...